Journalist: Gov't officials must belive evolution. Top Chemist, "I don't know how evolution works".

#1
via: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-evolution-catechism/

Journalist Adam Gopnik writes in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/evolution-catechism
Wisconsin governor and would-be Republican Presidential candidate Scott Walker, asked, in London, if he “believed in evolution,” took a pass.
...
What the question means, and why it matters, is plain: Do you have the courage to embrace an inarguable and obvious truth when it might cost you something to do so? A politician who fails this test is not high-minded or neutral; he or she is just craven, and shouldn’t be trusted with power. This catechism’s purpose—perhaps unfair in its form, but essential in its signal—is to ask, Do you stand with reason and evidence sufficiently to anger people among your allies who don’t?
James Tour one of the top ten chemists in the world wrote:
http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topi...-the-christian-creationist-and-his-“science”/

I do have scientific problems understanding macroevolution as it is usually presented. I simply can not accept it as unreservedly as many of my scientist colleagues do, although I sincerely respect them as scientists. Some of them seem to have little trouble embracing many of evolution’s proposals based upon (or in spite of) archeological, mathematical, biochemical and astrophysical suggestions and evidence, and yet few are experts in all of those areas, or even just two of them. Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?
...
Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don’t understand either. Well, that is all I am saying: I do not understand. But I am saying it publicly as opposed to privately. Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered.
...
Viktor Frankl ... a former Auschwitz inmate wrote in The Doctor and the Soul, that the source for much of the 20th Century’s inhumanity has come from the very origins being discussed here.

“If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone.

“I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment; or as the Nazi liked to say, ‘of Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers [emphasis added].”​
If Frankl is correct, God help us.​
 
#2
via: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-evolution-catechism/

Journalist Adam Gopnik writes in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/evolution-catechism


James Tour one of the top ten chemists in the world wrote:
http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topi...-the-christian-creationist-and-his-“science”/

I do have scientific problems understanding macroevolution as it is usually presented. I simply can not accept it as unreservedly as many of my scientist colleagues do, although I sincerely respect them as scientists. Some of them seem to have little trouble embracing many of evolution’s proposals based upon (or in spite of) archeological, mathematical, biochemical and astrophysical suggestions and evidence, and yet few are experts in all of those areas, or even just two of them. Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?
...
Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don’t understand either. Well, that is all I am saying: I do not understand. But I am saying it publicly as opposed to privately. Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered.
...
Viktor Frankl ... a former Auschwitz inmate wrote in The Doctor and the Soul, that the source for much of the 20th Century’s inhumanity has come from the very origins being discussed here.

“If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone.

“I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment; or as the Nazi liked to say, ‘of Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers [emphasis added].”​
If Frankl is correct, God help us.​
 
#3
an inarguable and obvious truth
Wow! Good on Adam Gopnik that he has "discovered" such a thing in the physical sciences.

It's also worth noting that part of the shenanigan is referring to "evolution" per se. The issue is macro-evolution - the idea that one species becomes another, completely different, species.
 
#9
#10
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christ...ientists-tweet-backfires-hilariously-n1962265

The official Twitter of the Democrat Party attempted to be snarky today and tweeted an image that implied that Republicans are anti-science:


Except on vaccines, GMOs, gluten allergies, homeopathy, etc RT @TheDemocrats: RT if you agree. pic.twitter.com/B0BfDHWTqC
— Omri Ceren (@cerenomri) February 25, 2015

@TheDemocrats depends on the scientists. I don't trust anyone that's involved in Monsanto or others of that ilk.
— Hannibal's Sous Chef (@ayngyl22) February 25, 2015

Except about when life begins “@TheDemocrats: RT if you agree. pic.twitter.com/8tVpqWfKhj”
— Sarah Stevenson (@sarahrstevenson) February 25, 2015

@TheDemocrats So we agree that #fracking is safe? http://t.co/4D2l5ljOkS
— Tony Beard (@tonybeard) February 25, 2015

Add your name to stand with President Obama on Keystone: http://t.co/VNQl8QTJ6j pic.twitter.com/eqXDlXD2N5
— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) February 24, 2015


 
#11
Stephen Meyer answer's the question:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/what_should_pol094941.html

Stephen C. Meyer April 2, 2015

...
Here's a set of sample answers that would allow them to do just that:


Reporter: "Do you believe in evolution?"

Candidate: "Of course, I believe that organisms have changed over time. I certainly believe in evolution in that sense. But I am skeptical about unguided evolution -- the idea that natural selection and random mutations have produced the major changes in the history of life we observe without any guidance or design. In fact, in peer-reviewed scientific publications, many scientists have expressed doubts about the creative power of natural selection and random mutation. I think that students in learning about the modern version of Darwin's theory should learn why scientists have these doubts. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories is a matter of basic scientific literacy. And there are scientific weaknesses in modern Darwinian theory."

Admittedly, this may be a bit on the long side. It could be shortened to:


Reporter: "Do you believe in evolution?"

Candidate: "Of course, I believe that organisms have changed over time. Yes, I believe in evolution in that sense. But I am skeptical about unguided evolution. I know that many scientists in peer-reviewed scientific publications have expressed doubts about the creative power of natural selection and random mutation. I think that in learning about the modern version of Darwin's theory, students should learn why scientists have these doubts. That's just a matter of basic scientific literacy."

Or even briefer:


Reporter: "Do you believe in evolution?"

Candidate: "I believe that organisms change over time, but I am skeptical about unguided evolution."
 
Top